1. Title, director and release year?
Homo Toxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
There are many toxins in the air and environment today which get into our bloodstream and harm our bodies.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Pollutants caused by humans pollute nature, which pollutes the food we eat and then the pollutants get into our bodies. It is very hard to know what levels of pollutants are harmful to humans so it is hard to tell where the regulation standards should be set. Industries have a big influence on the government to set regulations that help them rather than helping the people. There is a question whether the preventative approach is better than the do nothing approach do to this lack of reliable information. Our way of life today relies on these toxins that we put into our bodies, and would not be able to continue without them. For example; we would not be able to grow enough crops without pesticides.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Academic studies done on bisphenal A found that the safe levels of exposure by humans were much lower than what the industry studies found. This shows that science can be altered based on what outcome the scientists want to find. The industries obviously want to find that higher levels of pollutants are still safe so that they can pollute more. The legal levels set by the government are closer to what the industry studies have found. This shows the influence the industries have on the government. Hormones are illegal to use in cattle in Europe, but it is legal in the US and Canada. The government says that they are safe, but it is unknown whether that is true or not. Three government employees whose jobs were to find what is safe for sonsumers and what is not were fired because they believed that hormones were unsafe in cattle, and they were going to report that as their findings. The government did not want them to report this so they fired them and hired other people who reported that hormones in cattle are safe to eat. This clearly shows that industry has an influence on the government to find things in their favor. I appreciated the idea of the country no longer being the natural fresh air landscape that it was once thought to be. This is because of deforestation for farming, modern farming equipment, and pollutants coming from other areas.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the part of the film which talked about how more kids have ADD now than used to. Based on the information they gave in the film I do not think that this is due to toxins in the air. The film showed an experiment where rats were given the same doses of chemicals that humans are exposed to and found that rats hyperactivity levels increased greatly. They specifically said that this was a viable experiment because the rats were given the same doses as humans, but rats are much smaller than humans and so the same dose would have a much different effect on them as it would on humans. This is probably caused more by children watching more television, or more people diagnosing ADD. During part of the film there was an example where more females were being born than males. There was then a chart shaped like a human body showing more cases of illnesses reported in females than males in the same area. I may have missed a detail about this chart but to me there would clearly be more cases of illnesses in females than males because there are more females than males.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I want to look at a more comprehensive list of regulated levels of toxins in the US and compare that to other countries to see if the US is always higher or if it is pretty even overall.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film best addresses people who live in the country and believe that they are breathing fresh air. This film pretty much says that everything we eat is toxic today so there is not much of a way to avoid it on the individual scale. People must convince their government to make changes. This film may make people think that the government is where change must begin in order for there to be a big impact.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film suggests that we pollute less because those pollutants end up affecting us. The more chemicals we put into the environment, the more chemicals that get into our bodies.
1. Title, director and release year?
Homo Toxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
There are many toxins in the air and environment today which get into our bloodstream and harm our bodies.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Pollutants caused by humans pollute nature, which pollutes the food we eat and then the pollutants get into our bodies. It is very hard to know what levels of pollutants are harmful to humans so it is hard to tell where the regulation standards should be set. Industries have a big influence on the government to set regulations that help them rather than helping the people. There is a question whether the preventative approach is better than the do nothing approach do to this lack of reliable information. Our way of life today relies on these toxins that we put into our bodies, and would not be able to continue without them. For example; we would not be able to grow enough crops without pesticides.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Academic studies done on bisphenal A found that the safe levels of exposure by humans were much lower than what the industry studies found. This shows that science can be altered based on what outcome the scientists want to find. The industries obviously want to find that higher levels of pollutants are still safe so that they can pollute more. The legal levels set by the government are closer to what the industry studies have found. This shows the influence the industries have on the government. Hormones are illegal to use in cattle in Europe, but it is legal in the US and Canada. The government says that they are safe, but it is unknown whether that is true or not. Three government employees whose jobs were to find what is safe for sonsumers and what is not were fired because they believed that hormones were unsafe in cattle, and they were going to report that as their findings. The government did not want them to report this so they fired them and hired other people who reported that hormones in cattle are safe to eat. This clearly shows that industry has an influence on the government to find things in their favor. I appreciated the idea of the country no longer being the natural fresh air landscape that it was once thought to be. This is because of deforestation for farming, modern farming equipment, and pollutants coming from other areas.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the part of the film which talked about how more kids have ADD now than used to. Based on the information they gave in the film I do not think that this is due to toxins in the air. The film showed an experiment where rats were given the same doses of chemicals that humans are exposed to and found that rats hyperactivity levels increased greatly. They specifically said that this was a viable experiment because the rats were given the same doses as humans, but rats are much smaller than humans and so the same dose would have a much different effect on them as it would on humans. This is probably caused more by children watching more television, or more people diagnosing ADD. During part of the film there was an example where more females were being born than males. There was then a chart shaped like a human body showing more cases of illnesses reported in females than males in the same area. I may have missed a detail about this chart but to me there would clearly be more cases of illnesses in females than males because there are more females than males.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I want to look at a more comprehensive list of regulated levels of toxins in the US and compare that to other countries to see if the US is always higher or if it is pretty even overall.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film best addresses people who live in the country and believe that they are breathing fresh air. This film pretty much says that everything we eat is toxic today so there is not much of a way to avoid it on the individual scale. People must convince their government to make changes. This film may make people think that the government is where change must begin in order for there to be a big impact.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film suggests that we pollute less because those pollutants end up affecting us. The more chemicals we put into the environment, the more chemicals that get into our bodies.